I've recently been trying to coax "dbes02," a YouTube identity who finds omniscience and free will irreconcilable, into a formal debate.
It's not easy.
It's not enough to have the debate at a skeptical forum (my suggestion from the outset).
Dbes02 has all manner of reservations about the debate, such as asking what's the point if there is no arbiter. So I tell him he can choose the arbiter, even suggesting that his mother could fill the role if available. I was assuming she would be well disposed toward her son. He doesn't care to look like the one reluctant to debate, so he tries to make the arbitration thing look like a holdup from my end:
Just to (publicly) remind you: My formal debate challenge (from Sept. 23) remains open. The Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board remains my recommendation as the forum. You can pick the arbiter if you insist on one--that's not a concern of mine.
("I challenge you to a formal debate in that forum where you support the proposition that foreknowledge and/or predictability is fatal to libertarian free will.")
To publicly remind you - if YOU find a FRDB person to adjudicate.
If he's eager to debate then why put it on me to find the adjudicator? I don't care who adjudicates it, so how hard can it be for me to find somebody to judge it and declare a winner? His comment referred to a series of private messages we exchanged about the debate idea. I challenged him to the debate and told him I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his reply. He counter-challenged (I guess, in a way) saying he wouldn't hold his breath waiting for me accept an adjudicated debate challenge. Yes, his response was a bit incoherent (the debate challenge is mine to him; he had yet to make any debate challenge unless we count this one from his reply). And why phrase it as a counter-challenge in the first place? What's so hard about "I'll accept your challenge if the formal debate will be adjudicated" other than the commitment?
I'll offer two compatible guesses: First and already mentioned, he doesn't want to look craven. Second, he's a tad smitten with the idea of turning the arguments of others against them.
Turnabout can be a good technique when it is well executed.
The remainder of his above reply:
We've been 'debating' here - in a public forum. This type of debate (and even the formal ones with the likes of Craig, Hitchens, Dawkins, Lennox, etc.) is pointless - people disagree with each other. You say Swartz is right, I put a position down he's wrong. You disagree. Where's it get us?
If the world's best can't agree... what's the point. (But it's good to see you've dropped the schoolyard loutishness.)
Again, it seems tough for dbes02 to appear eager for debate when he thinks debate is pointless. It makes him look like he's readying his next excuse. So I made that clear to him:
This forum allows you too much leeway in playing games. You'll behave yourself better in a formal debate or suffer the consequences. Are you saying that you will accept the debate if *I* find somebody to arbitrate? After I gave *you* the opportunity to choose the arbiter? If that's all that's stopping you then go register now. Or is "This type of debate ... is pointless" waiting in the wings as your next excuse?
You should know a lot about game playing. Yes, this type of debate is pointless - everything is already in writing on the internet.
His reply allows me to segue smoothly into counting his reply as a reason to engage in the debate: He can stop my game playing in the formal venue, or at least expose it through his persuasive rhetoric to the detriment of my side of the argument.
He can't be thinking I'll be so reluctant to debate him that I will decline to find an arbiter. Can he?
Bad Blogs' Blood has partly evolved into the dumping ground for non-serious argumentation in addition to its role in memorializing mere bad blogs. Some folks just don't get around to blogging but express their bad arguments in other ways. Like YouTube:
Since I occasionally delve into philosophical and theological issues at my main blog, I published a brief entry on the above YouTube video at Sublime Bloviations. But the person responsible for the video, dbes02, went to such hilarious lengths to defend his work that this, if anywhere, seemed like the place to memorialize the discussion.
I began:
With this format, why post something other than your best argument? The video sets up a false premise, that if multiple choices are not equally easy then they cannot be considered free. A simple thought experiment shows this is not the case. Suppose an identical set of circumstances where outcome A occurs 99 percent of the time and outcome ~A occurs 1 percent of the time. If ~A is more difficult it does not contradict free will in that case (or else it would never happen).
dbes02 answered:
Your thought experiment fails - it begs the question, because you assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes. But even talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will. So your challenge doesn't even get off the ground.
Note that dbes02 stipulated the existence of free will for the sake of argument ("If I had free will ..."). Therefore, his initial objection that it begs the question to "assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes" is obviously false. But then he tries to layer the objection by supposing that merely "talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will." But that objection suffers multiple flaws. First, supposing that the same trial will result in 99% one result and 1% another result may just as well stem from past observational data rather than prediction, unless dbes02 is promoting the ridiculous notion that any statement of propositional truth about the future--even in merely hypothetical worlds--constitutes a prediction. More on that later. Second, the objection rests on an entirely different and controversial proposition, that free will and foreknowledge are incompatible. It turns out that the YouTube argument rests on an unstated set of controversial premises.
The conversation continued:
lol
How do I supposedly beg the question?
Your argument appears to consistently boil down to your own fallacious begging of the question: You're assuming determinism every chance you get. Have a look at your argument from the YouTube video you posted. Do you see "determinism" either specific or implied in the argument? It's not there. But as soon as your argument is criticized it magically appears.
If all you can come up with are red herrings and flawed arguments, you have got nowhere. Even if identical circumstances led to the same outcome 99% of the time you have appealed to predictability and hence contradicted free will.
Please come up with something coherent - youtube is already treating you as spam!
Note that dbes02's response simply restates his (second) objection without addressing my reply, other than to imply with his opening if/then statement that I'm guilty of at least one red herring fallacy and/or at least one flawed argument. What makes the argument flawed and/or a red herring? Perhaps the fact that he insists that his objection is valid. He drops his first objection in this response, perhaps realizing his mistake and declining to admit it.
It's neither a red herring nor a flawed argument to point out the *fact* that you did not include any presumption of determinism in your video argument. Playing "dial-a-fallacy" after you're caught posting a ridiculous question-begging argument is the red herring. Back to the drawing board with your argument, Champ.
Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make. But they aren’t. So are you going to actually show where the fallacy is instead of your chest beating? You're the one who raised determinism in your flawed thought experiment. Please present a coherent position. Your presence here is wearing thin.
Note again in dbes02's response that he does not address the point of attack. He restates the premise of the YouTube argument in language almost suggesting that he thinks I expressed agreement with it ("Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make"). He follows that with a fallacy of the complex question, falsely assuming in his query that I did not specify the fallacy. He then suggests that I raised determinism in the thought experiment, apparently based on the belief that probabilistic outcomes represent a particular prediction about the future--itself a baseless notion.
After this point, the conversation no longer appears in the company of dbes02's video, for he apparently exercised his prerogative in deleting subsequent comments. However, he continued to reply to my posts, which left me a partial record of the exchanges via e-mail. Before that behind-the-scenes look at the ensuing argument, however, have a look at a portion of dbes02's YouTube profile (in italics to distinguish it from the flow of the argument):
And how do many theists on YouTube deal with atheists making comments on their videos, criticising their position? Many of them censor comments, not letting anything they don't like through. Ever see 'Pending Approval'? Only on a theist's channel (in my experience so far).
How dare those theists censor comments! Though to be fair, dbes02 did himself no favors by leaving intact my three comments above.
Again, the same pattern: dbes02 repeats original assertion without addressing the reply. And perhaps he thinks I have never heard of reductio ad absurdum. It's at least true that I detect from him no riposte that qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum. Coming up with hidden premises like predictability entails determinism certainly doesn't count, even if we cut him a break on the erroneous assumption that probabilistic outcomes entail predictability.
So, dbes02's original argument depends (at least in part) on an unstated premise that we must take as true: Predictability entails determinism.
And note the (if/then) premise of the YouTube argument:
If I had free will it would be just as easy to choose to strangle my 8 year old daughter as to choose to hug her.
After we scrape below the surface, it turns out that the premise contains as an unstated premise the idea that predictability entails determinism. The only way free will could obtain under his premise is if outcomes were entirely random and not merely probabilistic. And dbest02's justification for his premise in answer to my objection was essentially to restate the premise as its own justification--in other words circulus in demonstrando--the circular argument.
At Sublime Bloviations, my preferred spot for blogging, I maintain a special blogroll dedicated to what I see as the best of liberal opinion, or at least liberal opinion presented capably.
And if you had told me a few months ago that Karen Street, who regularly comments at PolitiFact's FaceBook page had a political blog, I'd have given consideration to the idea that it belonged on that list--what I call the Sith blogroll.
But Karen Street's blog has found its way to a different list instead: The Bad Blogs' Blood Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll.
It's not enough to make the Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll by simply making a fanblog of Sublime Bloviations, even if it's lame in various respects.
The BBB Blogroll is intended for those blogs that manifest bad reporting and bad thinking as a prominent feature, and Karen Street's "Politi-Psychotics" establishes impressive standards in both respects.
The induction ceremony will consist of an evaluation of Street's defense of Joe Biden and PolitiFact with respect to the former's partition plan for Iraq. After that I'll provide just a few of the many outstanding examples of bankrupt thinking that earn Politi-Psychotics its rightful place at Bad Blogs' Blood.
Karen Street's infant blog has an "about" page, and it provides an excellent starting place for fundamental criticism of her work.
I had (...) decided it might be worth quantifying the rulings that PolitiFact gives. It was a way (in my view) to take them one step further: the best way to review a person’s rulings is individually because it’s important to see all the nuances, but calculating averages can give you a better view of that person among peers, and from one group to another (Democrats versus Republicans). So that is another part of my blog, called Politi-Score.
Projects like Politi-Score are useful for partisan game-playing and little else. Selection bias renders the calculated averages worthless for every scientific inquiry other than measuring PolitiFact's selection bias (more on that here).
More from Street:
I (...) realized that there were several patterns emerging. One of those is the “six guidelines” or reasons which are referred to in the “Grading PolitiFact” condensed “Critique the Critique” matrix. These are common, general reasons for issues I have noticed seem to manifest with each critique.
Apparently this means that Street thought of ways to systematically excuse PolitiFact. Let's see how they stack up:
Reason (1) “That’s not what we SAID we were looking for." What is PolitiFact’s (PF) method and goal in determining the truth of the fact? Do they state it in the article? If the person says we are not checking the underlying argument, just the statement, then Bryan’s claims are moot as to *ignoring the underlying argument.* PolitiFact may have implicitly stated it was not checking that in the article. And vice versa.
1) When the PolitiFact author says only the literal truth of the statement will be checked it does not render my criticism moot. Rather, it provides compelling evidence that I am correct that the underlying argument was ignored. When PolitiFact examines the underlying argument in some cases but not in others this tends to translate to unequal application of standards and results in selection bias. A fact check should always employ the same standards regardless. That is the surest way to help ensure objectivity. Layered instances of selection bias increase the likelihood that political bias will taint the results.
Reason (2) “We can’t go there.” Would checking *caveats* or *giving a more charitable interpretation* force PF to move into ideological territory, which again, is precisely what it doesn’t want to do?
2) Employing the same standards every time (see #1), including by always checking caveats and always employing the principle of charitable interpretation represent the best way of keeping PolitiFact from moving into ideological territory. When PolitiFact repeatedly fails to apply equal standards it brings into question whether entering ideological territory "is precisely what it doesn’t want to do."
Reason (3) “What is the focus of‘charitable’?” What is the agenda of Bryan’s frequent use of words charitable and uncharitable? Amusingly and ironically, according to the hesaurus, one of the words that can be used to replace *charitable* is *liberal.* Charitable also means “open handed” “sympathetic” and/or *helpful.* An antonym is “unforgiving.” Charitable can also be construed as, FAVORABLE. Bryan wants a more FAVORABLE interpretation….so, to what ends? Again, implying a more favorable interpretation should have been employed….favorable to who or what? Because making a more “charitable” interpretation might shift us into reason (2)—We can’t go there because it’s too ideological.
3) These "reasons" trend toward inquisition, don't they? The goal of charitable interpretation is obtaining the best understanding of an attempt to communicate. Where I advocate charitable interpretation for all (which I do), the agenda is the best understanding of whoever happens to be writing or speaking.
Reason (4) “Too much information.” Does PolitiFact limit the length (number of words) of its article/ evaluations? Because providing all the context and detail (“to support the underlying argument” as Bryan might say) Bryan demands might not be possible. This is the reason I include a word count for the article on the condensed critique table.
4) Obviously space is a consideration for journalists even on the Internet (and that goes triple or more for print). On the other hand, I do not ask for exhaustive ("all the context and detail") presentation of context. I simply point out such things as places where additional context significantly changes the picture. And there are ways of communicating an accurate picture, or at least a more accurate picture, without offending restrictions on space. If Karen ever asserts that my demands aren't possible it is reasonable to expect a demonstration. I doubt that a suitable case will ever occur.
Reason (5) “This is AS IS--NO returns.” If a pundit or politician makes a statement and then corrects it, should PolitiFact stand with its rating of the original statement even when the pundit or politician makes the correction? For example, when Rudolph Guiliani made the gaffe of saying that there were no attacks on America under G.W. Bush, Bryan wrote in his synopsis “…Sharockman's failure to note Giuliani's full explanation is nearly as perplexing as Giuliani's failure to make explicit note of the 9-11 attacks during his GMA comments. And contrary to Sharockman's opinion, Giuliani's explanation is quite defensible.” So, would going with Bryan’s opinion of Guiliani’s explanation make it any less biased?
5) Another question! The answer is "That depends." In a case like Giuliani's, charitable interpretation should have made it clear both that he know of and viewed as an exception to his remarks the 9-11 attacks. Aside from that, charitable interpretation obligates us to accept any reasonable interpretation, including the reasonable one offered by Giuliani. Sharockman's dismissal of Giuliani's explanation was not reasonable, and was just as amenable to evaluation as Giuliani's statements. As a result, the answer to Street's final question is yes, because my supposed "opinion" of the reasonableness of Giuliani's explanation was based on sound reason while Sharockman's was not. Street's question contained a false premise. Naughty, naughty. If it's all opinion then there's no such thing as "PolitiFact." Let them rename it "PolitOpinion."
Reason (6) “What the hell do you expect, anyway?” Too much “DIPing”—Demanding Impossible Perfection….What would a reasonable expectation be of conclusions reached by an organization such as PolitiFact when evaluating statements by political figures? Do claims of possible ideological bias or journalistic errors or omissions as noted by one who IS biased invalidate the stated goal of their work? We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be. Even Bryan admits their bias is unintentional (and his own, intentional); so what does he expect them to do? There’s always going to be a certain small amount of subjectivity present. Bryan is also critical of their journalistic technique, but that should be a separate issue. If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.
6) Please excuse Street's overlap with her reason #4. Everyone is biased, so the claim that anyone is unbiased is the most suspicious claim. And anyone of any level of bias can attempt to provide unbiased reporting. PolitiFact flouts the standards of objective reporting regularly (adverbs, snark); it is through the behavior that one judges the bias in reporting, not simply by noting the bias of the authors at the outset. "We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be." I encounter this fallacy with astonishing regularity. Indeed, it is exceptionally common coming from journalists. Most comments come from the extremes on any position (those nearer the center of the bell curve tend to care insufficiently to express themselves). Criticism from both sides does not indicate a lack of bias. It simply indicates that people may be found both left and right of the view expressed. I have criticism from the left and from the right. That does not remove my bias. It doesn't even reasonably suggest that I'm trying to be unbiased. It's long past time to put this mistake to rest forevermore.
Worth repeating:
If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.
If what a majority of right wing and left wing Web sites do invalidates my judgment then it also invalidates Street's judgment ... so we can't trust Street to judge that I can't be trusted as the judge. Street has achieved self-stultification with admirable aplomb.
Summary:
In sum we have six obstacles placed on the road to truth courtesy of Karen Street. In each case, she would discourage the application of the best standards of judgment by providing excuses for the uneven application of standards.
What good is a blog that fundamentally opposes its own supposed purpose? Certainly a blog like that is what Bad Blogs' Blood was created to recognize.
Afters:
I offer thanks to Street for her charitable evaluation of my humble talents (referring to portions of the "about" page I did not elect to quote). If Street is not capable of doing a considerably better job with her blog than I am seeing thus far, then it counts against my judgment of her capabilities. I look forward to better work in the near future, hopefully including an extensive revision of the "about" page at Politi-Psychotics.
As mentioned in a recent post, Karen Street of PolitiFact/Facebook/commentary infamy has started a blog that occasionally attempts to tackle an occasional of my Sublime Bloviations. And that blog is not the place to publish this type of play time.
The subject: The second in Street's fledgling series "Lil' White Lies," which affords us yet another opportunity to ask: Where's the supposed lie?
Street had her answer to the first post in the series via a comment to her blog. She has eradicated blog commentary in her domain, so that's the end of that conversation.
The second in the series concerns a criticism I made of Robyn "Blumñata" Blumner, editorial columnist extraordinaire at the St. Petersburg Times. Blumner plays ventriloquist's dummy for Barry Ritholtz, who argues that the Community Reinvestment Act was not a significant factor in the subprime mortgage crisis. I posted my disagreement with Ritholtz's thesis and referred readers to the work of John Carney for further explanation/exploration.
Street took issue:
The basis of Bryan’s contention of Blumner “buying” Ritholtz’s faulty reasoning was a critique by John Carney of Business Insider. This is the John Carney who wrote this article at the website American Conservative where he stated “We’re the backbench of a minority.”
A) The basis of my contention was not Carney's work but the fact (plainly expressed by me) that many subprime mortgages are not at the same time CRA loans, so Ritholtz reasoning that CRA banks would more often fold as the crisis deepened is, in logical terms, a non sequitur based on a faulty premise.
B) Perhaps Street wants to imply that getting published in the American Conservative makes Carney right-wing enough to discredit his arguments. Perhaps that's why she neglected to mention that Carney's article in the American Conservative attacked the relative lack of content in the typical bestselling books by conservatives such as Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. If that was not Street's intention then it is difficult to discern a useful purpose in her second sentence above.
But did John Carney actually “specifically debunk Ritholtz’s objection”?
"(D)ebunk" is obviously my judgment, and I stand behind it based on what is written above and in my original post. Carney wrote in response to (Barry) Ritholtz on the same issue Blumner mentioned in her column:
As much as I respect Barry’s formidable analytical powers, I’m afraid he’s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far easier to answer than he suspects.
Street offers no reasonable evidence to refute Carney's argument (or mine, for that matter).
He supposedly “debunked” it with three points as to how the CRA created more lax lending standards which “spread” to other lenders…I will try to address each point. Here you can also read a little more about Carney's "bizarre crusade" against the CRA.
Before moving on to see how Street tries to deal with Carney's argument, it's worth noting her attempt (probably the second such) to discredit Carney with irrelevant attacks. She also posted the incorrect link to Carney's three points (rookie bloggers ...). The right one is here.
Three points:
1) Street claims (minus citation) artificial demand for subprime loans would have required more regulation by the Bush administration (non sequitur; ignores long-term development of the subprime market). She adds (again without citation) that the Office of Thrift and Supervision was a "'captured agency'" preventing (for example) that type of regulation (captured for how long?). Finally, she cites Bhutta and Canner claiming that CRA loans accounted for an insufficient percentage of loan sales in 2006 to have significantly influenced the crisis. But that simply misses the thrust of Carney's argument and again ignores the long term nature of the growing subprime market as well as Carney's bond sales argument. Street employs a kind of MXC/wall buggers argument: Have Japanese people covered in velcro rope-swing at a velcro-covered wall and hope one of them sticks.
2) Street handwaves Carney's point that the threat of regulation may have similar effects to regulation by repeating her unsupported claim that bankers were not concerned with regulation during the Bush administration. That notion overlooks the obvious fact that Bush only served four years at a time. Banking behavior that creates a ruckus always draws the attention of government, even if the legislation or regulation is as much as four years away. It also overlooks the fact that Congress wields more power than the presidency. Witness the fact that TARP, enacted under Bush, placed a heavy federal hand on banks.
3) Street needs to learn that it counts as plagiarism to quote material verbatim without in some clear manner acknowledging that it comes from somebody else. Street uses an unattributed quotation of Carney then follows with another non sequitur:
This means that the banks should have led the way and started the subprime offerings earlier than the mortgage companies. According to Mike Konszal, financial engineer, “I’ve never seen a data set that pass[ed] this hurdle.”
Konszal obviously needs to assume that Carney's "quickly" needs to be slow enough to permit his proposed measure to detect the difference. Konsal achieves that by adding straw-filled limbs to the body of Carney's argument, resulting in a Frankensteinian straw man.
Add it all up and tell me: Who's the liar and where's the lie?
Sept. 9, 2010: Removed a redundant "attempt" in the paragraph preceding "Three points."
Why waste perfectly good space at Sublime Bloviations dealing with the comments of crackpots?
Great question, if I do say so myself.
That problem accounted in part for the creation Bad Blogs' Blood.
As noted at Sublime Bloviations, one Karen Street created a political blog with a significant emphasis on PolitiFact and my criticisms thereof. Street disabled commentary on her blog (eliminating a handful of comments I had posted), or else I would not bother posting about this at all; I'd simply leave a comment at Street's Politi-Psychics (sp).
Today's bee-in-the-bonnet tale concern's Street's "Politi-Score" project. She uses an Excel spreadsheet to collect data on individuals whose statements are rated by PolitiFact.
Street read a post I created in response to a PolitiFact story by Bill Adair. Adair posted some data in his story similar to Street's, so I made the connection:
Folks like Karen Street are thinking "So, what's the problem? Glenn Beck tends to fudge the truth."
Bee, meet bonnet:
Bryan White objected yesterday in his blog that my calculations are not scientific….where did I ever say they were? The fact is even trying to do it scientifically would be wrought with the quandaries of the same selection bias of which he speaks. Not just selecting samples, but judging those samples.
I wrote nothing at all about Street's calculations. I identified the selection of stories as unscientific because of the obvious selection bias. Street is doing the math, not the selection. But it would be as true of Street as it is true of Adair that her writing suggests an unscientific conclusion. Minus the explanation that the results of something like "Politi-Score" do not serve as a useful measure of the truthfulness of the individuals, readers will tend to understand it that way. And, as a corollary, it isn't unreasonable to think that Street herself draws that type of conclusion until she gets around to a categorical denial. Street almost delivers that denial by acknowledging the reality of selection bias in the PolitiFact data she uses.
A lesson in charitable interpretation
On the issue of Glenn Beck's ratings, Street wrote:
So Glenn Beck doesn’t skew toward false, he’s actually right spot on Barely True.
Adair had written that Beck's ratings skew toward "False." Street tried to put a finer point on it by noting that Beck's ratings form something like a bell curve. Basic charity of interpretation, however, ought to suggest that Adair viewed the range of the "Truth-O-Meter" as a type of continuum, with the left end representing greater falsehood and the right end representing greater veracity. Thus, for Adair to say that Beck "skews toward the False end of the PolitiFact spectrum" simply means that Beck's average is left of the center. He's not trying to associate a rating with Beck's average.
Errors of this type, in sufficient numbers, could qualify a blog for induction to the Bad Blogs' Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll. But it's early. I don't take Karen Street as an idiot overall. On the contrary She just acts like a idiot on occasion. Unfortunately, those occasions have occurred frequently during the early stages of her blogging career.
"Kathy" is one of the main contributors to a trending liberal blog called "Comments from Left Field." Every so often I drop by there to see how liberals think, and to contribute to discussion threads. Unfortunately, it is all too apparent that I will have to keep searching for quality content from the left.
Not that I reached that conclusion only recently. But a recent exchange with Kathy on waterboarding provided such an astounding example of bankrupt thinking that I can't keep CFLF on the Sithblogroll at Sublime Bloviations, and moreover it is time to induct CFLF into the bad blogs list at Bad Blogs' Blood.
I found Kathy's approach to waterboarding typical of the left--in my experience, anyway--and therefore both fascinating and disturbing. Kathy thinks that waterboarding is obviously torture--and her opinion parallels Justice Potter Stewart's famous opinion on obscenity from Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I know it when I see it."
Having read the Bybee and Yoo memos, I was aware that the legal opinion on which the Bush administration relied rested largely on the distinction between "pain" and "extreme pain," the latter representing the concept stated in the Convention Against Torture. Kathy used the Convention Against Torture as her source for the definition of torture, but denied that the CAT definition was ambiguous.
Given the relatively obvious demarcation problem with the CAT definition, I asked Kathy how we should distinguish between "pain" and "extreme pain." Though her posts in the discussion thread contained many errors, her response to that query serves as a clear representation of why a blogging Kathy will serve primarily to uneducate people, and why CFLF belongs on the bad blogs list. At least if she sticks to politics and world events instead of something about which she possesses genuine knowledge.
Where do we draw the line between “severe” and non-severe? Do you know, since you do not find it the least bit ambiguous?
Kathy:
Common sense, not to mention intellectual honesty, would tell you that severity of suffering is defined by what the victim is feeling, not by what the torturer thinks he is feeling, or decides he will feel if a particular torture is done in a particular way.
As well, common sense would tell you that if the victim is screaming, or crying, or begging for the torture to stop, severe suffering is taking place.
And common sense should tell you that intentionally drowning someone to the point of blacking out and/or death — much less doing it 83 times, or 183 times — will cause severe suffering.
Finally, common sense will tell you that if the purpose of subjecting a person to waterboarding, or to sleep deprivation, or to excruciating stress positions, or to exploitation of phobias, is to force the victim to comply with your request for information or answers to specific questions, then the suffering really should probably be severe, since mild discomfort is probably not going to do the trick.
And yes, all of this IS obvious. Or should be, to a minimally intelligent and reasonable person.
So much so, in fact, that I feel I’ve entered some Alice in Wonderland world just by answering these questions.
Which is why I won’t, anymore.
I expect that most people who seriously follow the news would realize that legal standards based on subjective impressions pose a difficulty. I knew no other way to take a standard based on "what the victim is feeling, not what the torturer thinks he is feeling, or decides he will feel if a particular torture is done in a particular way."
Isn't that type of subjectivity the perfect vehicle for a prisoner lawsuit alleging that confinement apart from his terrorist allies produces intolerable psychological pain? How is one to properly serve Allah as a proper extremist if he is prevented from killing infidels? I chose to illustrate the absurdity of Kathy's position by showing her to be a torturer of the worst sort. In my reply, I complained that Kathy was torturing me.
But that wasn't the end of it, of course. Kathy provided the tools to make a strong case against her. After all, it is the victim's impression of suffering that serves to indicate the degree of torture, not the expectation of the torturer. Kathy's own rationale silenced her objections.
True to form, however, Kathy had somewhat contradicted herself. Though the suffering victim of torture is the arbiter of the degree of torture in her view, "common sense" was supposed to inform us that suffering accompanied by various behaviors of the sufferer would indicate to observers (perhaps even the torturer?--I didn't get around to asking that of Kathy) that the physical or mental pain was "severe pain" rather than mere potentially legal "pain."
It was clear what I had to do. I hit the "Caps Lock" key and begged Kathy to stop torturing me.
I figured I had an airtight case according to Kathy's logic. She didn't mount much of a defense.
Bryan: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP, KATHY!
Dang. You’re guilty.
And you, Bryan, are an idiot. Draw whatever conclusions you wish: I am through here.
So, Kathy's mental assessment of the legal definition of torture amounts to "It's obvious" or "I know it when I see it." And when called on her shallow-as-a-Slip 'n Slide definition of torture, she reverts to ad hominem and avoidance.
And without a deeper rationale than "It's obvious," there is no way to reason the issue. Sadly.
***
The above portion of the induction ceremony was crossposted to Sublime Bloviations.
Let it be acknowledged that "Kathy" is not the only blogger who posts at Comments From Left Field. But if Kathy's political blogging did not have the effect of lowering a reader's IQ, then other CFLFbloggers such as the ne'er-do-well Tas or the foul-keyboarded "mattbastard" could easily justify adding CFLF to the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.
The Center for Inquiry discussion board is primarily populated by humanists and skeptics.
Chris Crawford decided months ago to put my posts on ignore. But he can view the response of others to my posts.
And that's where the hilarity emerges. CFI has a policy against engaging in gratuitous personal attacks.
Take it away, Chris!
I realize that I am usurping the responsibilities of our moderators, but I desire to register my objection to the personal nature of your post, Vyazma. While I refuse to interact with Bryan for reasons parallel to your own, I nevertheless feel that this kind of talk lowers the standards of discourse in our little community. I realize that it is frustrating to deal with intellectual dishonesty, but the only civilized option available to you is to ignore Bryan. When I first came here, I engaged Bryan honestly and fairly, and after much wasted effort I realized that honest discussion with Bryan is impossible. I therefore terminated all interaction with him. I recommend that same course of action to you.
(CFI discussion board)
While it's funny enough that Crawford engages in his own personal attack against me (the liar with whom honest discussion is not possible!), the reaction thus far at the forum compounds the comedy. Crawford apparently managed to successfully get his personal attack under the noses of the moderators, but they dutifully removed the post about which he complained.
Blogger Michael Hussey at "Pushing Rope" apparently felt himself vindicated now that the housing bubble has burst, since he was saying that it had burst back in 2006. While 2006 did eventually produce evidence that the housing bubble had popped, Hussey's analysis exhibited no basis in fact while the evidence at the time showed a mere decrease in the rise in home prices.
Hussey even performs plastic surgery on the past in the attempt to improve his looks:
Bryan continues to argue the 2006 housing market was fantastic.
"Do you read your links?"
Of course. What part did you quote that you think translates into the housing market having popped? The part about decreased confidence about the future? Does "downward momentum" mean slowing price gains or decreasing prices?
Do you just read into stuff what you want to see, or what?
In 2006, I saw Florida in economic trouble. Bryan, I could ask you if you saw what you wanted to see. But that would be a pointless rhetorical question.
When a person is so illogical that he takes from my comments that the Florida housing market in 2006 was "fantastic" there's little point in trying to use reason. A drop in the rise in prices does not indicate a "fantastic" market for either buyers or sellers. A drop in prices would at least indicate a potentially fantastic market for buyers, but that hadn't happened yet. In short, Hussey lies about what I wrote through the power of ignorance (assuming that it wasn't a lie of the willful type).
With analysis like that, the rope Hussey's pushing might as well be THC-rich hemp.
Updating the hilarious antics of Kathy (of Comments from Left Field) as noted in my previous BBB post, we find Kathy first insisting that she answered my question, and then reversing herself by claiming that there was no reason to address the question.
Just in case the exchange is tough to read from the screen capture I'll transcribe it minus the wisdom of "Chief":
Bryan: Huh. Kathy didn't answer the question again. The start of a pattern?
Kathy: I answered the question, Bryan. You just don't like the answer.
Bryan: Uh, Kathy, you conspicuously avoided the subject of journalism and whether or not it was your intent to support Hinderaker’s argument. Instead you tried to take issue with whether or not pictures showing progress in Iraq, such as the ones I suggested, would show Iraq as something other than hell.
There’s nothing to like or dislike about your “answer” unless it’s the relative distance from the questions that were asked.
Kathy: Bryan, why would I address the question of whether or not it was my intent to support Hinderaker’s argument? That is *your* spin on what I wrote, *your* way of justifying your position. It’s not something I need to respond to, as if it were a serious point.
Bryan: So since it’s something you didn’t need to respond to were you just being funny when you said you answered the question? Great stuff, Kathy. I look forward to more.
Bad Blogs' Blood hasn't been as active lately because I simply haven't had the time to seek out blogs with the idea of featuring them here. So this blog has evolved into a place where I can dissect commentary from various blogs that I visit, along with potentially inducting the worst blogs into the BBB blogroll of shame.
I very recently put "Comments from Left Field" on the Sith Blogroll over at the Sublime Bloviations blog, and it wasn't long before I recognized that the inimitable Tas blogs there on occasion. Not exactly an equivalent to the Good Housekeeping Seal, if you know what I mean.
So, though I continue to admire the fervor with which the left fielders do their work, some of the commentary is going to end up here.
Blogger "Kathy" responded to a Power Line post regarding the shrinking coverage of the Iraq War. Kathy took issue with John Hinderaker's post ...
What’s truly astounding is that John can put out, and believe, this “no more tears formula” packaging of the war despite the fact that powerful evidence to the contrary is staring him right in the face, at the top of the article, right below the headline. Indeed, John had to scroll down, below that graphic visual evidence, to even begin reading the text of the article. You can’t see the first line of text without scrolling down.
I don't know how Kathy got the impression of a "no more tears formula" for reporting on the war. Hinderaker's point was that the mainstream media prefer to either report with tears on full blast or not report at all. Perhaps Kathy is "left" brained and that explains the odd interpretation. She triumphantly points out to that willfully blind Hinderaker that the story has a picture of tragedy included--how dare he infer that the reporting of the war has gone happy?
I replied in the "comments":
Are you trying to prove Hinderaker’s point, Kathy? That the Times can’t be bothered to publish anything that doesn’t carry the stain of failure attached?
There are plenty of pictures of success. Markets in Basra, Baghdad and even Kirkuk operating like normal everyday markets. Former Sunni insurgents gainfully employed in keeping security in their provinces–fighting al Qaida. Iraq poised to secure oil deals that will help ensure a national income to enable investment in infrastructure–investment severely neglected for thirty years (since Hussein began pouring resources into the Iran-Iraq War–with only a tiny respite between that and the invasion of Kuwait). The Times has access to the traditional defense. Violence sells papers. Stories about happy Iraqi markets do not. The fact that heavy reporting on the success in Iraq would not help Obama is just gravy.
And Kathy worked up a reply (of sorts) of her own:
That market in Baghdad — would that be the same one that David Petraeus drove through in an open unarmed Hummer? Or is it the one that John McCain strolled through in a bullet-proof jacket surrounded by armed troops with helicopters hovering overhead, as he told us that any of us Americans could walk around there without fear?
Gainfully employed? By whom? I guess they must have worked those problems with the U.S. not paying them.
I’m sure you remember that Hussein had a lot of help from the U.S. with those resources he poured into the Iran-Iraq war. Oh, and about the infrastructure: It has been neglected, but not for 30 years. It was fine before 1991, when the U.S. destroyed it in the Gulf War, and over the next 12 years of almost continuous bombing raids. Funny, not much has been done with that infrastructure in the past five years, either. Saddam, as you’ll recall quit his job in 2003.
One final note: Happy Iraqi markets are nice, but they are no substitute for clean water, food, a home, and friends and relatives who aren’t dead. Pictures of happy Iraqi markets make Americans like you happy, but if you were an Iraqi living in Iraq day to day, and having gone through the last five years of war and occupation (not to mention the more than a decade of killer sanctions before that, and before THAT the Gulf War) you would know that Iraq is not a happy place overall. In fact, overall, Iraq is hell.
One should first note that Kathy doesn't answer either of my questions and completely drops the issue of the journalistic coverage of Iraq. That's amazing in and of itself, but there's more amazing stuff there which I will address paragraph by paragraph.
1) I mention markets in three major cities, and Kathy wonders if they are the same market that Petraeus visited (or McCain in armor). I guess Kathy's point is that danger continues in Iraq. Fair point, as far as it goes, but it can't blunt the fact that the markets are operating normally now whereas they formerly did not. Spell that p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s, Kathy.
2) The U.S. is paying the former Sunni insurgents. Kathy apparently seizes on reports like this one (from Feb 200i) in The Washington Post to give her continued hope in failure. Kathy is the sort of person who concludes that a big prison break in Kandahar is a pretty sure sign of a Taliban comeback, mind you.
3) Kathy thinks that Hussein got scads of help from the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq War. That's a common misconception. She also thinks that somehow while Iraq was fighting for its continued existence against Iran and having millions of its people killed that somehow there were plenty of resources with which to sustain Iraq's infrastructure. Oh the wonders of a "left" brain.
It is a curious paradox that chronically indebted and with much of its infrastructure in ruins, Iraq emerged from the war a far more substantial military power than when it invaded Iran in September 1980. (Amazon.com)
Iraq, as I noted in my comments, had a short period (about three years) to repair infrastructure before the Kuwait invasion and the Gulf War. Kathy is misinformed on this point. She also complains that not much has been done to help the infrastructure since the more recent invasion. On the contrary, much has been done but much has been lost because of insurgent attacks that particularly target oil pipelines and the power grid. In the "left" brain those insurgent attacks are directly the fault of the United States, I suspect. Uh--"almost continuous bombing raids"? Whatever. Hussein steered excess cash into sustaining his personal lifestyle and his armies instead of using it to rebuild infrastructure. He was intent on holding onto his power even if his people had to suffer for it. Again, the "left" brain may well see that as the natural outworking of U.S. policy.
4) In her last paragraph, Kathy essentially repeats her point from her first paragraph that Iraq is still in bad shape. Iraq may be "hell," as Kathy puts it, but it's getting better all the time since the surge strategy was implemented. For Kathy, that probably means it's time to sound the horns of retreat--and probably any reason would be good enough for that for one with a "left" powered brain such as hers.
The most recent post over at "Ramblings" helps confirm that Fran doesn't have more than a rudimentary clue about the oil economy. Big oil company profits when the price of oil spikes supposedly indicates that the war in Iraq was the idea of the oil companies. I wonder how the face of the nation would change if voters had to get a passing grade on an oil economy test? Could Dennis Kucinich get a single vote?
The bad content remains the secondary issue with this blog, however. The outstanding problem remains the nutty handling of commentary. I think I've figured out what it takes to have a comment stick, however, by using a carefully graduated string of responses. Red will indicate that the post was removed. Green will indicate apparent acceptance of the comment.
I remain curious about tension between letting the Iraqis settle things themselves and sending in foreign peacekeepers who are not us (U.S.).I'm also sincerely interested in any plausible evidence that apologizing is a useful foreign policy technique. (screenshot of the post before it was removed)
Apparently too inflammatory, so I went for something shorter more along the lines of objective reporting the next time.
Democrats in Congress would have tabled Kucinich's bill if not for Republican support. (screenshot of the post before it was removed)
Not the kind of truth Fran wants in front of the eyes of her readers, evidently. I decided to drift to the other side of neutrality.
What a nice post. (screenshot taken shortly after posting)
Bingo! It's been up ever since (and remains as of this writing).
I didn't sink to facetiousness, either. Fran's post was a respectful and relatively even-handed entry about a war memorial. Unfortunately the blog remains crap, on balance.
Maybe it'll improve with time (cue Wayne Campbell's infamous phrase).
Fran offered another example of her zeal to suppress. This one is especially funny.
Fran and company wonder how vets can warrant arrest for disrupting a veterans' ceremony. I supplied the answer with an explanation rooted in legal precedent.
But by the next day the information was gone. Can't have people knowing what the law says about it, can we?
The last post (as of this moment) by "Spadoman" allowed this to tumble from both sides of his mouth:
It is wrong to disallow a faction, especially Veterans on Veterans Day, because they carry a message different than the organizers intended. On the other hand, what did the organizers intend? I believe the Veterans for Peace also have the right to organize a parade. Getting permits would be the problem.
Maybe they're close to figuring it out on their own, now (assuming they're not pretending to have it figured out based on what I already told them!
Let's say they organize a World Peace parade and one of the factions in favor of World Peace wants peace via military jihad? And they stand in front of the podium while the event organizers are trying to do their thing?
Of course my favorite part is host Fran asking "No dissent allowed?" right before she quashes ... well, not dissent exactly. She just quashes the voice she doesn't want to hear, apparently irrespective of content.
I've visited some appallingly bad blogs over the years. Perhaps only the sands of time protect some of them from BBB induction. But this morning's induction stands as perhaps the saddest thus far. While visiting the blog "Ramblings" as hosted by "Fran" I experienced craven commentary management that I haven't seen since the Amanda Marcotte moment.
Not that the regulation of commentary is the only weakness of this blog. The opinions, protected from intellectual insight just as effectively as they are protected from outside criticism, represent the type of thing that results in the worst liberal stereotypes.
But the screening of commentary does serve as the overriding reason for BBB induction.
A blogger who won't tolerate a one-sentence statement of fact (with accompanying URL) is pathetic in a sobering way. No fanfare. This one calls for a dirge.
BBB welcomes Ramblings to its blogroll of dishonor.
Read the history here and here if you're interested.
This post fulfills the goal of documenting 16 flops in the "Counterspin" attempt of the Project for the Old American Century.
I got through 15 flubs going more-or-less in order (which became tricky after I took a hiatus from the project and the page was rearranged). I took my time choosing the final entry. Many of the remaining "Counterspin" attempts concerned alleged talking points that weren't worth defending, and the justifications looked like they'd be at least ball-park accurate. If the author (T. J. Templeton, as I understand it) sticks with the type of material represented by most of the recent additions, it will count as an improvement.
But on to business.
The alleged talking point:
The use of white phosphorous in Fallujah doesn't count as a chemical weapons attack
Well, it can definitely be used as a weapon, and it's definitely a chemical ... but so is lead, depending on the definition we use.
The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons." (ThinkProgress)
This citation ultimately bases its case on an internal Pentagon paper. I'll get to that at the end.
In short, the Pentagon statement is exactly right, and the internal paper is irrelevant.
A Bit of History:
The attack in Fallujah, in this case, occurred in November of 2004. The stink at the time was an allegation from an Italian journalist that white phosphorus had been used to target civilians in Fallujah. How one can make that claim when insurgents wear civilian clothing and commonly use civilians as shields in order to wage media war ... is a good question.
One particularly important thing to remember is that military forces circled Fallujah before attacking, and allowed substantial time for civilians to leave the city.
The assault on Fallujah that was to occur in November 2004 was among the most widely telegraphed attacks in American military history. The US and Iraqi forces had no chance of executing any major surprise, though, as you will see, they did achieve some surprise. For its part, the enemy since April had the time to regroup, reorganize, dig in, resupply, reinforce and prepare. Debriefing reports from our troops and embedded reporters reflect that the enemy did all of that, and did it very well. As you will see, the Americans had time to prepare a very detailed plan of attack, and had the time to acquire intelligence that would hold US forces in good stead when the time came to attack.
Official estimates, confirmed by many Iraqis who remained in the city, were that about 75 percent of the population had left, heeding the American and Iraqi government warnings of impending doom (some say as many as 90 percent left; hard to tell). If you accept a population figure of 300,000, and the 75 percent evacuation figure, that would leave something on the order of 75,000 people left in the city. (talkingproud.us)
In short, considerable pains were taken to avoid civilian casualties. Surprise was forsaken for the sake of civilians.
It should not surprise if the insurgents deliberately kept civilians near their positions in order to wage media war.
But then POAC isn't really concerned about that aspect of the attack. Templeton is apparently convinced that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
Here's what the BBC reported:
WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.
Article 1 Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol: 1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities. 2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads. 3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3. 5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2 Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. 4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
First, note that the United States has never ratified Protocol III (objecting that it is overbroad to the point of potentially forcing the military in some instances to allow greater civilian casualities because of its prohibitions).
Second, note that the U.S. arguably stayed within the bounds of the treaty anyway. The white phosphorus used in Fallujah was used primarily for screening, and secondarily to flush insurgents out of hiding. Both are permissible uses under the CCCW.
And, obviously, white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon according to the laws of war, or else it would not be covered under the CCCW.
So, what about this Pentagon paper? Well, it was an "information report." In essence, some guy phoned his "brother" in Iraq and the guy told him that "phosphorus chemical weapons" had been used in Iraq following the Gulf War.
The term is apparently not a Pentagon designation, but the terminology chosen by the source of the information. The term did end up in the summary title of the report.
In any case, the Pentagon doesn't decide what is and what isn't a chemical weapon according to the laws of war.
***
Now for another Pentagon document, courtesy of the second URL. This one is apparently based at least in part on the document we just considered.
Templeton thinks that sections IIc and TAB A show that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
Soon after the cease-fire, US forces began to receive reports from Shiia refugees that described Iraqi government attacks on their cities. Some reports indicated that the government used mustard (a blister agent), as well as napalm and white phosphorus against the Shiias.[9]Other reports denied that government forces had used chemical warfare agents against their city, but claimed they had used weapons containing napalm and white phosphorus.[10]One refugee report provides a compilation of accounts from 150 Shiia refugees and alleges the use of all these substances, as well as hydrochloric and sulfuric acid.[11]Unfortunately, none of the refugees provided a technical or otherwise accurate identification of the weapons that were used by the Iraqi government, whether they contained a chemical warfare agent or not. In addition, many of the refugees had no training or technical understanding of weapons. As the compilation report indicates, these refugees generally categorized the weapons as "chemical."[12]This fact, coupled with the difficulty of accurately translating these reports, complicated our attempts to determine the accuracy of the allegations of chemical warfare agent use by the Iraqi government. (IIc)
There's nothing there that enables a logical conclusion that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Read it 20 times and that won't change--unless you're hallucinating by that point.
Well, how about TAB A?
This tab provides a listing of acronyms and abbreviations found in this report. Additionally, the glossary section provides definitions for selected technical terms that are not found in common usage.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CIA
Central Intelligence Agency
CW
chemical warfare
CWA
chemical warfare agent
DIA
Defense Intelligence Agency
MASH
mobile army surgical hospital
NBC
nuclear, biological, and chemical
SITREP
situation report
US
United States
USAMRICD
US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense
A blister agent is a chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract. Blister agents include mustards, arsenicals like lewisite, and mustard and lewisite mixtures. Blister agents are also called vesicants or vesicant agents.[48]
Blood agent
A blood agent is a chemical warfare agent that is inhaled and absorbed into the blood, carrying the agent to all body tissues where it interferes with the tissue oxygenation process. The brain is especially affected. The effect on the brain leads to cessation of respiration followed by cardiovascular collapse.[49]
Chemical warfare agent
A chemical warfare agent is a chemical substance, excluding riot control agents, herbicides, smoke, and flame, used in military operations to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate though its physiological effects. Included are blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents.[50]
Conventional weapon
A conventional weapon is a weapon that is neither nuclear, biological, nor chemical.[51]
Mustard
A mustard agent is a blister chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract.[52]
Nerve agents
Nerve agents are the most toxic of the chemical warfare agents. Nerve agents are absorbed into the body through breathing, by injection, or absorption through the skin. They affect the nervous and the respiratory systems and various body functions.[54]
Riot control agent
A riot control agent is a chemical that produces transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure and rarely require medical treatment. Riot control agents are effective in quelling civil disturbances and in preventing unnecessary loss of life.[55]
White Phosphorus
White phosphorus is a form of phosphorus which creates spectacular bursts when used in artillery shells and is very damaging to the skin since it burns on exposure to oxygen.[56]
The first thing to notice is the definition of "Chemical Warfare Agent." The definition gives us no reason to include white phosphorus--but it could be argued that it provides no strong reason to exclude it, either. The definition does specify the inclusion "blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents" but one might argue that the list does not exclude additional categories.
On the other hand, "Blister Agent," "Blood Agent," "Mustard" and "Nerve Agent" are all specifically defined as chemical warfare agents. The "White Phosphorus" entry includes no such distinction.
There is no reasonable evidence in this document that white phosphorus is considered a chemical warfare agent by the Pentagon, even if we were to suppose that the Pentagon had some role in defining the term for purposes of the international laws of war. ***
Congratulations, Project for the Old American Century. You're on the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.
Eighteenth in a continuing series on the "Counterspin" page at People for the Old American Century. One more clunker and POAC is inducted into the Bad Blog's Blood blogroll of bad blogs.
It's not this one, however. POAC wisely punted to Snopes.com which, along with Annenberg Political Fact Check (FactCheck.org), is where anyone with good sense would go to resolve questions about these issues rather than going to POAC Counterspin.
I think that Snopes.com misses the mark by a bit on this one, however, since referring to Gore's Internet claim was primarily a case of hyperbole used to highlight Gore's tendency toward self-aggrandizement. Snopes.com did make note of it, but probably underemphasized it in their answer: "... although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving) ...").
Snopes.com accurately notes that the hyperbole is misleading; and I would add for those unaware of Gore's pattern of exaggerating aspects of his career. For that reason, use of the claim as hyperbole should be adequately clear in the context that it is used.
Seventeenth in a continuing series, peeling away the spin of the "Counterspin" page at the Project for the Old American Century.
The supposed talking point:
It was the Democrats who stopped the vote count in 2000
Really? Which vote count?
T. J. Templeton, who has admitted being the author of POAC's Counterspin entries, has this habit of using unattributed "talking points," so it is often hard to tell what the original claim is supposed to have meant.
Just from memory, I recall a number of separate vote counts in Florida in the wake of the 2000 election. I seem to recall that the Broward County vote count was stopped temporarily because of uncertainty about the legalities, and some of that probably stemmed from Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' determination that certain counties were proceeding with inappropriate vote counts.
Harris made that determination on the advice of a law group dominated by Democrats, I will add.
How pervasive was this talking point? I searched for the exact phrase with Google and got one hit. That hit was--you guessed it!--POAC Counterspin.
So how does Templeton debunk this mysterious talking point? Perhaps we may obtain a clue as to what the talking point is simply by considering the response.
Three URLs this time. As usual, I'll treat the URLs in order of occurrence.
The new White House policy chief, who is filling Karl Rove’s shoes in that post, took part in the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot” of 2000, in which GOP operatives, dressed as protesters, tried to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount. (Via Truthout.)
(Truthdig)
If you're wondering how Joe Kaplan taking part in the "infamous 'Brooks Brothers Riot'" amounts to a falsification of a claim that the Democrats stopped the vote count in Florida, then I'm with you.
Well, let's follow the links and see if we accomplish anything other than chasing a wild goose.
What about that "infamous" riot, anyway?
That's when a bunch of Washington GOP operatives, posing as outraged Floridians, waved fists, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and pounded windows in an effort to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount effort. (TPMMuckraker)
So far nothing about who stopped a vote count, though perhaps the intent is to show that Republicans were responsible for intimidating the people (Democrats?) who stopped the vote count temporarily.
How did they pose as outraged Floridians, I wonder? Was the chant more involved than Muckraker presented it, something more like "We're outraged Floridians and we want you to stop the fraud!"? Or did they just rent cars with Florida license plates (oh, the deviousness of that!)?
Well, maybe it was the pounding on the windows that stopped the vote count.
article.php is deprecated
(smirkingchimp.com)
That trail ends with a broken link.
I suppose I'm left to my own devices.
Aired November 22, 2000 - 1:27 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: Miami-Dade County's canvassing board has just voted 3-0 to stop all recounts after a contentious morning there. And we'll continue to talk with our correspondent about those developments. But that perhaps puts all the focus on Palm Beach County and Broward County and the question surrounding those absentee ballots.
(CNN)
And from a little later in the same transcript:
CHRIS BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Frank, the Gore campaign officials that I've been able to reach are just stunned by this setback, the decision from the Miami-Dade officials. They say they believe that the Miami-Dade County officials have been intimidated by the Republicans, that there was a near-riot this morning at the courthouse where they were trying to count those ballots. And they believe that there's no question there's a relationship between that near-riot this morning and this decision. They say this is part of a pattern of Republican obstructionist tactics, and this is one of their greatest concerns the Republicans will try to slow down if not stop this count before the deadline on Sunday -- Frank.
(ibid)
OK, so Gore team officials thought that the riot definitely influenced the Miami-Dade decision. What did the county canvassing board say?
JIM LEHRER: There were several major developments today in the Presidential recount in Florida. In Miami-Dade County, election officials halted their hand counting. They said they could not finish by Sunday. Vice President Gore's campaign appealed that decision. Last night, the Florida Supreme Court ruled hand counts must be included in the state's final tally, if completed by Sunday.
(PBS)
The Miami-Dade canvassing board halted its manual recount because it looked like it would be a waste of money, in other words. Was the GOP riot team just concerned about the manual recount?
This section of the same PBS transcript encapsulates that aspect of the story:
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But today in south Florida, partisan fighting escalated after the Miami-Dade canvassing board said it didn't have time to recount of all its 650,000 ballots. Instead, the Democratically controlled board decided to hand count just those ballots not counted by the machines, a move denounced by Republican leaders.
Florida election law in 2000 allowed no provision in the protest of election return procedure for a county canvassing board to only canvass undervotes.
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or
(c) Manually recount all ballots.
(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.
(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:
(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.
(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.
The PBS reporting also provides a hint or two that the Miami-Dade recount was not open to the public (note the clamoring by the protesters that they be permitted to witness the recount).
***
We move to the second URL.
"Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
We appear to have left Miami-Dade County without ever establishing that the three Democrats who made up the canvassing board were not the ones who decided not to proceed with the manual recount. We're now in Leon County, dealing with a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.Well, then again, there's this:
It was there that he personally shut down the review of ballots from Miami-Dade County, a populous and particularly contested county where independent reviews would later reveal that hundreds of ballots that could reasonably have been counted for Gore were instead discarded.
(ibid)
The writer appears to have lost his hold on objectivity, if not reality. It's absurd to suggest that Bolton "personally" shut down that count because the canvassing board appears primarily responsible, and even if the protest is blamed (a protest which appeared to have legitimate grounds--see above) for influencing the board's decision it's hard to see how it could in turn be associated directly with Bolton.
[Note: Contrary to my initial impression, the passage above still refers to the count of Miami-Dade ballots in Leon County. Thus, the writer is suggesting that Bolton was "personally responsible" for causing the vote count to stop even though it was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States--a position no less absurd than the other]
Again, there's nothing here that appears to contradict the claim that the Miami-Dade canvassing board ended its own manual recount.
It was [Bolton's] role, on a Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots to relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount. ``I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time. (Knight-Ridder Newspapers, via extralove.com)
The lead of the story makes it look like Bolton's just trying to intimidate the poor innocent poll workers. Seems like bringing news of a U.S. Supreme Court stay would give some legitimacy to his intent to stop the recount.
The Knight-Ridder story had a fascinating amount of spin to it. The writer repeatedly sheds the practices of objective writing: ("bursting into"--no attribution, "supposedly spontaneous"--no attribution, "helped persuade"--no attribution) in favor of editorializing. Summary: Another POAC flop. Miami-Dade Democrats decided to halt their manual recount because they could not complete it by the deadline, and probably because they were embarrassed about trying to conduct an improper recount limited to undervotes while barring the count from public observation.
To help underscore that last point, here's a Youtube video of the protest.
The video is a piece of liberal propaganda, to be sure, but it's valuable because it has audio of the protest: "Let us in." Listen for it, starting around the 2:00 mark (it was counting down when I previewed it).
One might wonder why the news reports have the protesters chanting "Stop the fraud!" while the audio has them chanting "Let us in!"
I guess the reporter chooses which chant is most relevant to his version of the story.
The "I can't believe I missed this the first time" file (Sept. 15, 2010 Update)
The Truthout/Truthdig account of the Brooks Brothers riot says that the group was "dressed as protesters."
Like there's some required uniform or appearance code for protesting?
The name "Brooks Brothers riot" came from the description of one of the GOP participants in defense of the group's actions. The media portrayed them as a mob. The "Brooks Brothers" comment emphasized that it was a nicely dressed group (formal attire expected of all protesters!)--not the sort of attire one would ordinarily expect of a mob unless it was during Prohibition and they carried submachine guns.
